Bob Hewitt’s parole hearing to go ahead, despite Covid-19 fears

With the threat of a Covid-19 lockdown looming large, Olivia Jasriel – one of convicted child rapist Bob Hewitt’s victims – this week braved a cross-country road trip to plead with a parole board not to release the disgraced former tennis star.

Prison visits were last week cancelled in line with new regulations gazetted following the president’s declaration of a national disaster but Hewitt’s new parole hearing is expected to go ahead as scheduled tomorrow.

Attorney Peter Van Niekerk, of Eversheds Sutherland, works closely with local NGO Women and Men and Children Against Child Abuse and represents some of Hewitt’s victims. He said this morning that the venue had been changed and it would no longer take place inside the prison but that the hearing would proceed.

Hewitt was in 2015 convicted of two counts of rape and one count of indecent assault, dating back to the 1980s and 1990s. He was sentenced to eight years for each of the rapes – with two years of each suspended on condition that Hewitt pay a fine of R100,000 – and two years for the indecent assault.

Jasriel, whom Hewitt raped when she was just 12 years old, on Sunday drove from her home near Pretoria to Port Elizabeth, where Hewitt is currently serving his time at North End Prison.

This morning she said she was glad “to a degree” that the hearing was going ahead but she felt that “again, [the authorities] have not given us any consideration”.

A media storm erupted last year, after Hewitt was released on parole without his victims having been properly notified of the process. The parole board’s decision to release Hewitt then, ended up being overturned. His case was remitted back to the board for a new hearing to be convened and in a statement issued earlier this month, WMACA said Hewitt’s parole hearing had been set down for tomorrow.

“I did want to get it over and done with. It is something that constantly hangs over my head,” Jasriel said.

“But in light of Covid-19, first of all, it’s cost us a fortune in the cancellation of tickets and accommodation. We then had to drive down on Sunday and there’s a good chance we might get stuck here.”

She said while Hewitt’s rights were “constantly taken into account,” the rights of the victims were not.

“He has a right and is entitled to parole. I also have a right to my health and safety but if I don’t come down here and I’m not in PE, chances are he’s going to go home,” Jasriel said.

Correctional services spokesperson Singabakho Nxumalo said that Hewitt’s victims were offered the opportunity to participate via a video-conferencing, “But that request was not favoured”.

“Critical to mention is that there is a court order compelling us to finalise the matter within 40 days. Any delays will mean we are in contravention of that particular order. This was also explained to the victims of crime.”

Nxumalo said his department had activated protocol “geared to ensure that there are systematic procedures for officials at the coal face to deal with different situations”.

“This will relate to rehabilitation programmes, which shall not constitute more than 100 inmates in one group, general maintenance work, parole boards and case management committees.

“Officials and inmates must always adhere to the guidelines provided and there are officials assigned to ensure that there is compliance,” he said.

In Van Niekerk’s representations to the parole board, on behalf of those for whom he acts, he anticipated that Hewitt would argue his age was a factor to be taken into account.

“In the event that he does, it is submitted that when sentencing Hewitt, Judge [Bert] Bam took Hewitt’s age into account. He stated that ‘Hewitt is solely to blame for his fate and justice must be seen to be done, even to ageing offenders’,” Van Niekerk said.

“Justice would not be seen to be done if Hewitt was released on parole at this stage and the seriousness of his crimes and his failure to show an iota of remorse far outweighs any submission Hewitt may make in regard to his age.”

Van Niekerk highlighted Hewitt’s submission at the Supreme Court of Appeal, that the crime was not “cruel or callous”.

“Far from showing remorse or compassion to the complainants, when asked whether Hewitt was prepared to participate in the [victim offender dialogue] process, he stated that he would only be willing to take part … ‘provided that the … process is held with all the victims present in person’. It is submitted that a rehabilitated and remorseful offender would not have the gall to seek to impose conditions on a dialogue aimed at reconciliation,” he added.

For more news your way, download The Citizen’s app for iOS and Android.